Earlier entries

"Retired Navy Rear Adm. Craig Steidle, head of NASA's new Office of Exploration Systems, stopped short of promising that the Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV, program would be managed in Huntsville - like its predecessor, the Orbital Space Plane."

10 March 2004: CEV Fly off in 2008?

Editor's note: Word has it that Code T AA Craig Steidle is working on a plan whereby there would be a fly-off of two competing CEV designs sometime in CY 2008. No word yet as to when the RFP for such a program would be released but one would assume that having hardware in 2008 would require some swift procurement activity starting ... yesterday.

Editor's note: According to a NASA Watch reader Steidle was asked about this after his NAC presentation in Huntsville. "Steidle has a chart that points to a procurement line between two teams and in 2008 there is a downselect. That chart looked like there was no way but to go with a fly-off. Steidle said it could be two technology demonstrators and not even a CEV with a moldline that would become a CEV. Or it could be a boilerplate fly-off with some CEV related technology. He doesn't know yet. The field is wide open, he said."

"During a teleconference last month, NASA Associate Administrator Craig Steidle said it's too early to say what the new vehicle would look like or how much of the Orbital Space Plane work could be transferred into the new concept. Steidle heads the Office of Exploration Systems, the office charged with developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle."

"This procurement is hereby cancelled in its entirety. No final RFP will be issued, nor will proposals submitted in response to the draft RFP be accepted."

24 November 2003: OSP Demo Center Update

"Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Orbital Sciences are funding the center. The purpose is to provide a place to show our team's current concepts for the OSP and how we are addressing key safety issues, launch operations and autonomous operations with the ISS. Specifically, the center displays two concepts our team has developed in response to NASA's top-level OSP requirements. It also contains a full-scale simulated OSP cockpit. The center provides a place for decision-makers and stakeholders to visualize and understand the OSP concepts." Julie Andrews Communications - Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co.

"Lockheed Martin will unveil a new Orbital Space Plane Demonstration Center this week in the Washington, D.C. area. Dedicated to the accomplishments of human spaceflight, the Center will showcase the concepts and operational qualities of NASA's next space transportation system through simulators and interactive graphics."

Editor's note: How can this facility "showcase the concepts and operational qualities of NASA's next space transportation system" if NASA has not even selected an OSP contractor yet? Also, who is the audience for this facility - and what is it supposed to accomplish? Is it designed to wow NASA personnel, members of Congress and their staff? The media? The general public? Finally, who is paying for this? I have sent an email inquiry to the listed press contacts - and have yet to hear back from any of them.

"Leaders of the House Science Committee have stepped up their resistance to NASA's new Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program, proposing that an appropriations measure defer the spacecraft's development until the U.S. government comes up with a vision for space exploration."

11 November 2003: Lockheed Martin to Open "OSP Demo Center"

Editor's note: Lockheed Martin will soon be opening an "OSP Demo Center" In Crystal City on 18 November 2003. Among the things to do there is a OSP simulator and a video presentation narrated by Patrick Stewart (Star Trek's Jean luc Picard). The Demo Center is located at Airport Plaza 1, Suite 101, 2711 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal City, Virginia (Map). Invitations are being sent out, so I am not certain you can just walk in and take a tour.

"NASA/MSFC intends to negotiate additional scope under existing contracts, and solicit and consider proposals under a limited competition, only with the Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and a team consisting of the Northrop Grumman Corporation and the Orbital Sciences Corporation, for the design, development, test, delivery, and flight certification of an Orbital Space Plane (OSP)."

"Unfortunately, NASA's response does not directly address either of the concerns we raised in our letter. It does not explain how the Orbital Space Plane fits into an overall vision for the human space flight program, but rather acknowledges that such a vision is still being developed. It does not explain why the spending proposals for OSP are credible, but rather suggests that Congress continue spending now and make decisions about the program later."

"Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Ranking Democrat Ralph M. Hall (D-TX) recently sent a letter to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, expressing their "deep concern with NASA's current approach to the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) Program," and urging O'Keefe to "defer the current program until the inter-agency space review is completed, approved by the President, and thoroughly vetted with the Congress."

Editor's note: This article has been updated with additional input about what actually went on during this meeting. Previous accounts were incomplete and somewhat misleading. I regret these omissions and hope my updates more accurately reflect what was said by those in attendance.

Editor's note: Dennis Smith was making the rounds on Capitol Hill last week. He is telling staff that the cost of getting to a CRV (crew return) capability for the OSP - by 2008 - will cost between $11-12 billion. The cost to get the OSP to have a CTV (crew transport) capability atop an EELV is still not known - at least Smith has not been able to provide those numbers to Congress.

The four contractors funded by NASA in FY 2003 to do Alt Access studies for ISS logistics and resupply will be meeting with at NASA HQ tomorrow. NASA recently extended the contracts for these four companies with $4 million divided among the four.

Meanwhile the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will be marking up a number of things this Wednesday including Rep. Gordon's H.R.2450 which seeks to "provide for the establishment of an independent, Presidentially-appointed investigative Commission in the event of incidents in the Nation's human space flight program that result in loss of crew, passengers, or the spacecraft, and for other purposes." Rep. Rohrabacher's H.R.914
which seeks to "amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for investing in companies involved in space-related activities."

Meanwhile an effort is reportedly underway at Code B at NASA Headquarters that looks at possible ramifications that might result from shutting down Shuttle operations after 3 or so years - as soon as ISS assembly is completed. When asked to comment on this study last Friday, OSF AA Bill Readdy said that he "was not aware of this study."

"[Dennis] Smith said NASA will issue a call Nov. 26 for Orbital Space Plane proposals, and the final shape - capsule or space plane - will be known by the end of December. In the spring, contractors will issue their proposals, and by next August NASA will choose the contractor team to build the Orbital Space Plane."

"For the United States to get a shuttle replacement soon and at a reasonable cost, it is imperative that Congress force NASA to return to its roots. Had the nearly $5 billion the government wasted in the past two decades gone instead to some of the upstart private companies struggling to build new commercial spacecraft, we might already have a shuttle replacement flying right now."

"The NASA workforce is the most talented, dedicated, ingenuous, industrious group of people I have ever known in my 43 years of aerospace experience. Surely, with this unparalleled resource, NASA management can find some better way to spend five or more years and billions of dollars than the creation of nothing more than a "Super-Sized" Soyuz. That's a dead-end street."

"Under the proposal announced Tuesday, a "transport" version capable of carrying four people to the station, as well as back to Earth, could be ready as soon as 2010, although the official target date would remain 2012."

"NASA's Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program is one step closer to becoming the nation's next space vehicle with the successful completion of its Systems Requirements Review. The review evaluated the vehicle's concept design for providing crew rescue and transfer for the International Space Station."

"This report is the agency's blueprint for acting on the recommendations from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) and safely returning to flight. This document is an initial outline to help guide the Space Shuttle Program."

The first U.S. Air Force/Boeing "Delta IV Heavy" Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, a strong candidate to be the next U.S. manned launch vehicle, has been assembled here in preparation for rollout to Launch Pad 37B for several months of checkout before a demonstration flight in May 2004.

"NASA's aspirations are more nebulous. In the wake of the Columbia disaster, the agency is undergoing an internal review of its priorities. In human space exploration, the completion and operation of the ISS is expected to be affirmed as the agency's top priority. But laying the groundwork for Mars could become a more visible part of the ISS's raison d'etre."

"That's the issue. If Boeing can compete for it, then that will have an effect on price," Dumbacher said. "If there is competition, then that keeps the price down. "If there is a decision made that Boeing can't provide a proposal, then I don't know what we would do after that."

Editor's Note: Boeing has NASA in a pincher hold: they build the X-37 and they are one of the two potential ELV launch providers. Now Boeing is whining and complaining about everything - and NASA seems to have fallen for it. Whatever legal/financial problems Boeing is experiencing are not of NASA's making - and NASA should not have to be penalized as a result. Meanwhile, it is time for someone at MSFC to show a little spine - and a little creativity - when dealing with this issue. Hey, wasn't an X-37 launch from a Shuttle cargo bay one of the original options?

"NASA/MSFC intends to negotiate additional scope under existing contracts, and solicit and consider proposals under a limited competition, only with the Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and a team consisting of the Northrop Grumman Corporation and the Orbital Sciences Corporation, for the design, development, test, delivery, and flight certification of an Orbital Space Plane (OSP)."

"The objective of the potential acceleration enabled through this action is to provide initial operational capability of the OSP system as soon as practical, and the associated benefits to ISS utility and crew, up to two years earlier (from 2010 to as early as 2008 or sooner)."

"The lack of detail has generated rumblings in Congress, where lawmakers complain that they can't make long-term policy or budget decisions for the agency until there's a clearer picture of the space plane."

"None of the Shuttle's capabilities are indispensable, argued Tumlinson, and the ISS should not be used as an excuse to keep flying it at the risk of more astronauts lives. If needed, the Russians can keep it going, or it can be mothballed until it can be taken over by a private Space Port Authority, and then operated, serviced and expanded by private spaceships and cargo vehicles. Now is exactly the right time for a change that can eventually open space to the people who have paid for it all."

Editor's Note: This editorial is so full of contradictions and nutty conclusions as to make me wonder if anyone even bothered to read it before it was released. This paragraph alone causes me to wonder. Here is the logic as best I can figure it out: it is not OK to risk astronaut's lives flying on a Space Shuttle but it is OK to risk Russian cosmonaut's lives flying in a Soyuz or those of other people flying in some "private spaceship". Until a cogent, logical argument with logical premises and solutions - can be made by this - or any other organization - as to what to do with the Shuttle other than "stop flying it" and then wait for some magic to happen in the private sector, they should all just shut up and sit down. The last thing this situation needs right now is noise and random arm waving.

"NASA/MSFC intends to negotiate on a sole source basis with The Boeing Company Phantom Works Southern California for a long duration orbital vehicle (LDOV) technology demonstrator under the Advanced Technology Flight Demonstration Vehicle (X-37) Project."

"Sean O'Keefe, NASA's administrator, said he wanted industry to use simple off-the-shelf technology for the new system. "We are not trying to push the envelope here," he said. "We are taking the `KISS and tell' approach: Keep It Simple, Stupid, and tell us the best way to get what we need."

"Beyond the immediate cause of the accident, "the whole question" of extending the life of the shuttles is "on the table," said retired Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., chairman of the investigating board. Gehman said the board's final report will address these concerns and present remedies that could add considerably to the cost and complexity of flying the reusable space planes."

"Aviation Week & Space Technology reports in its May 12 issue that out of about 60 key NASA and contractor managers and technicians interviewed by the Columbia Accident Board on shuttle safety, "not a single person said that the NASA quality program is where it ought to be", investigators told the magazine."

"Citing a lack of specific goals and a broad vision, Members of a key House Subcommittee expressed frustration over NASA's proposed new Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP) and Orbital Space Plane (OSP). They also echoed witness concerns that the current plan gives the U.S. few capabilities above what is currently available and will come at an undetermined cost."

"I am not going to vote for any funding for the existing orbiter to go back to space," Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said at a half-day hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's proposed Orbital Space Plane, a crew transport craft."

"Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) added: "NASA's proposed Orbital Space Plane program won't deliver a Space Station crew return vehicle until four years after we need it, and it will cost billions of dollars more than the X-38/CRV program that was cancelled by the Administration. I think that 's both shortsighted and wasteful. We can do better."

"The location of the Soyuz TMA spacecraft was unknown for a few hours - but an experienced recovery team soon found it. But what would happen if a Soyuz landed outside of the traditional recovery zone in Kazakhstan - such as on a large flat plain in America?"

Editor's note: This story contains links to the text of a number of previously unreleased NASA Soyuz contingency planning documents.

"A small team was chartered by NASA to make a top-level assessment of the viability of using the Apollo Command and Service Modules the basis for a Crew Return Vehicle, and potentially for a Crew Transfer Vehicle, for the International Space Station. This assessment was conducted 13-14 March 2003."

Editor's note: The complete report - including all tables - is now online

"SpaceRef's Keith Cowing, who broke the Apollo story, said today that "it's not clear what the real reason is behind these discussions, other than that many options are being looked at, and there will be hearings next week on Capitol Hill, and you can guarantee that all sides of the issue will be aired." Cowing observed that some people think using an updated Apollo capsule would represent a step backward, while others see it as a step forward. "If America is looking to build a capsule simply because it doesn't have money to build something more sophisticated, with wings, then shame on us," he said. "However, if this capsule and the modular approach - an approach that could include missions outside low Earth orbit - is what's under consideration, then yahoo!"

"Revisiting decades old technology may seem a backwards step, but it could make sense, said Keith Cowing, a former Nasa scientist who posted the report on his Nasawatch website. "A capsule is cheap and safe and if you aim it right then the laws of physics will make it land," he said. "But it's not clear what the real reason is behind these discussions."

"Orbital acknowledges that its relatively small size could hamper its bid for a NASA contract to build a next-generation vehicle that could be used to shuttle astronauts to the international space station. So it teamed with Northrop Grumman Corp. for the competition, which will pit them against Lockheed and Boeing."

"Members of NASA's Advisory Council complained Thursday that the agency's decision to build an orbital space plane rather than a full-fledged replacement for the space shuttle betrayed a lack of vision for the future of the nation's space program."

"The purpose of this document is to provide a clear understanding and consistent interpretation of the Mission Needs Statement (MNS), Level 1 Requirements, and the Operations Concept as approved by the NASA Executive Council for the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) Program. These three documents should be considered as an integrated set of documents, which provides a basis of understanding such that the OSP Program can develop the lower level requirements and the Program Plan."

"The normal job for the OSP will be crew exchange. A four-person crew will use an OSP as its transportation to and from the space station. The OSP they launch in will serve as their lifeboat for their four- to six-month stay in space. After the new crew has settled in, the outgoing crew will return to Earth in its OSP. Besides OSP, the Russian Soyuz will continue to be used for an additional three persons. Normally there will be a seven-person crew on the station, three using the Soyuz for transport and four using an OSP."

Editor's note: the author is making a lot of assumptions here - and stating them as certainties. In reality, NASA has not yet decided whether OSP crew transport vehicles and those left on orbit as CRVs will necessarily be the same or different spacecraft. Nor has any formal decision past the middle of this decade been made with regard to the continued provision of Soyuz spacecraft by Russia. Moreover, it is still not a given that the crew complement will be 7.

"NASA today released the top level requirements for the Orbital Space Plane - a next generation system of space vehicles designed to provide a crew rescue and crew transport capability to and from the International Space Station. These requirements set the foundation for the design of the vehicle and its associated systems."

"Less than three weeks after the Columbia tragedy grounded the U.S. space shuttle fleet, NASA is expected to release to aerospace companies its requirements for a new spacecraft to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station."

"We've been told to implement the plan," Dennis Smith, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's program manager for the Orbital Space Plane, said yesterday. "What we've been asking ourselves is if there is any way we can do anything to speed things up."

"NASA/HQ intends to purchase these services from Dr. Daniel Mulville under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), Only One Responsible Source. Dr. Daniel Mulville has nearly 3 decades of experience in the development and management of the NASA space vehicle programs. He is a recognized expert on these matters throughout NASA and elsewhere in government."

28 January 2003: OSP Level 1 Requirements Due Soon

Editor's note: Sean O'Keefe visited MSFC last week with OSF AA Bill Readdy. Among the topics discussed were the Level 1 Requirements for the Orbital Space Plane. Word has it, at O'Keefe's direction, that the OSP requirements were to be succinct enough so as to fit on one page. They apparently meet that requirement.

"The initiation of NASA's latest space transport program, the Orbital Space Plane (OSP), was challenged today by the Space Frontier Foundation, which estimates the program's chances of success at zero."

Categories:

\n\n\"Retired Navy Rear Adm. Craig Steidle, head of NASA's new Office of Exploration Systems, stopped short of promising that the Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV, program would be managed in Huntsville - like its predecessor, the Orbital Space Plane.\"

\n\n\n

\n 10 March 2004: CEV Fly off in 2008?

\n\nEditor's note: Word has it that Code T AA Craig Steidle is working on a plan whereby there would be a fly-off of two competing CEV designs sometime in CY 2008. No word yet as to when the RFP for such a program would be released but one would assume that having hardware in 2008 would require some swift procurement activity starting ... yesterday.

\n\nEditor's note: According to a NASA Watch reader Steidle was asked about this after his NAC presentation in Huntsville. \"Steidle has a chart that points to a procurement line between two teams and in 2008 there is a downselect. That chart looked like there was no way but to go with a fly-off. Steidle said it could be two technology demonstrators and not even a CEV with a moldline that would become a CEV. Or it could be a boilerplate fly-off with some CEV related technology. He doesn't know yet. The field is wide open, he said.\"

\n\n\"During a teleconference last month, NASA Associate Administrator Craig Steidle said it's too early to say what the new vehicle would look like or how much of the Orbital Space Plane work could be transferred into the new concept. Steidle heads the Office of Exploration Systems, the office charged with developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle.\"

\n\n\"This procurement is hereby cancelled in its entirety. No final RFP will be issued, nor will proposals submitted in response to the draft RFP be accepted.\"

\n\n\n

\n 24 November 2003: OSP Demo Center Update

\n\n\"Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Orbital Sciences are funding the center. The purpose is to provide a place to show our team's current concepts for the OSP and how we are addressing key safety issues, launch operations and autonomous operations with the ISS. Specifically, the center displays two concepts our team has developed in response to NASA's top-level OSP requirements. It also contains a full-scale simulated OSP cockpit. The center provides a place for decision-makers and stakeholders to visualize and understand the OSP concepts.\" Julie Andrews Communications - Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co.\n\n\n 20 November 2003:Lockheed Martin Opens Orbital Space Plane Demonstration Center in Washington, D.C.

\n\n\"Lockheed Martin will unveil a new Orbital Space Plane Demonstration Center this week in the Washington, D.C. area. Dedicated to the accomplishments of human spaceflight, the Center will showcase the concepts and operational qualities of NASA's next space transportation system through simulators and interactive graphics.\"

\n\nEditor's note: How can this facility \n\"showcase the concepts and operational qualities of NASA's next space transportation system\" if NASA has not even selected an OSP contractor yet? Also, who is the audience for this facility - and what is it supposed to accomplish? Is it designed to wow NASA personnel, members of Congress and their staff? The media? The general public? Finally, who is paying for this? I have sent an email inquiry to the listed press contacts - and have yet to hear back from any of them.

\n\n\"Leaders of the House Science Committee have stepped up their resistance to NASA's new Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program, proposing that an appropriations measure defer the spacecraft's development until the U.S. government comes up with a vision for space exploration.\"

\n\n\n\n

\n 11 November 2003: Lockheed Martin to Open \"OSP Demo Center\"

\n\nEditor's note: Lockheed Martin will soon be opening an \"OSP Demo Center\" In Crystal City on 18 November 2003. Among the things to do there is a OSP simulator and a video presentation narrated by Patrick Stewart (Star Trek's Jean luc Picard). The Demo Center is located at Airport Plaza 1, Suite 101, 2711 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal City, Virginia (Map). Invitations are being sent out, so I am not certain you can just walk in and take a tour.

\n\"NASA/MSFC intends to negotiate additional scope under existing contracts, and solicit and consider proposals under a limited competition, only with the Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and a team consisting of the Northrop Grumman Corporation and the Orbital Sciences Corporation, for the design, development, test, delivery, and flight certification of an Orbital Space Plane (OSP).\"

\n\n\"Unfortunately, NASA's response does not directly address either of the concerns we raised in our letter. It does not explain how the Orbital Space Plane fits into an overall vision for the human space flight program, but rather acknowledges that such a vision is still being developed. It does not explain why the spending proposals for OSP are credible, but rather suggests that Congress continue spending now and make decisions about the program later.\"

\n\n\"Congress wants a definite road map for NASA priorities, Cowing said, one that would outline what plans are for the space plane, space station and space shuttle. \"They want schedules,\" he said.\"

\n\n\"Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Ranking Democrat Ralph M. Hall (D-TX) recently sent a letter to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, expressing their \"deep concern with NASA's current approach to the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) Program,\" and urging O'Keefe to \"defer the current program until the inter-agency space review is completed, approved by the President, and thoroughly vetted with the Congress.\"

\n\n\"Lockheed Martin will lead the team as the system prime contractor. Northrop Grumman's role will be as principal teammate while Orbital Sciences Corporation will serve as teammate and subcontractor.\"

\n\nEditor's note: This article has been updated with additional input about what actually went on during this meeting. Previous accounts were incomplete and somewhat misleading. I regret these omissions and hope my updates more accurately reflect what was said by those in attendance.

\n\nEditor's note: Dennis Smith was making the rounds on Capitol Hill last week. He is telling staff that the cost of getting to a CRV (crew return) capability for the OSP - by 2008 - will cost between \$11-12 billion. The cost to get the OSP to have a CTV (crew transport) capability atop an EELV is still not known - at least Smith has not been able to provide those numbers to Congress.

\n\nThe four contractors funded by NASA in FY 2003 to do Alt Access studies for ISS logistics and resupply will be meeting with at NASA HQ tomorrow. NASA recently extended the contracts for these four companies with \$4 million divided among the four.

\n\nMeanwhile the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will be marking up a number of things this Wednesday including Rep. Gordon's H.R.2450 which seeks to \"provide for the establishment of an independent, Presidentially-appointed investigative Commission in the event of incidents in the Nation's human space flight program that result in loss of crew, passengers, or the spacecraft, and for other purposes.\" Rep. Rohrabacher's H.R.914 \nwhich seeks to \"amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for investing in companies involved in space-related activities.\"

\n\nMeanwhile an effort is reportedly underway at Code B at NASA Headquarters that looks at possible ramifications that might result from shutting down Shuttle operations after 3 or so years - as soon as ISS assembly is completed. When asked to comment on this study last Friday, OSF AA Bill Readdy said that he \"was not aware of this study.\"

\n\n\"[Dennis] Smith said NASA will issue a call Nov. 26 for Orbital Space Plane proposals, and the final shape - capsule or space plane - will be known by the end of December. In the spring, contractors will issue their proposals, and by next August NASA will choose the contractor team to build the Orbital Space Plane.\"

\n\n\"For the United States to get a shuttle replacement soon and at a reasonable cost, it is imperative that Congress force NASA to return to its roots. Had the nearly \$5 billion the government wasted in the past two decades gone instead to some of the upstart private companies struggling to build new commercial spacecraft, we might already have a shuttle replacement flying right now.\"

\n\n\"The NASA workforce is the most talented, dedicated, ingenuous, industrious group of people I have ever known in my 43 years of aerospace experience. Surely, with this unparalleled resource, NASA management can find some better way to spend five or more years and billions of dollars than the creation of nothing more than a \"Super-Sized\" Soyuz. That's a dead-end street.\"

\n\n\"Under the proposal announced Tuesday, a \"transport\" version capable of carrying four people to the station, as well as back to Earth, could be ready as soon as 2010, although the official target date would remain 2012.\"

\n\n\"NASA's Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program is one step closer to becoming the nation's next space vehicle with the successful completion of its Systems Requirements Review. The review evaluated the vehicle's concept design for providing crew rescue and transfer for the International Space Station.\"

\n\n\"This report is the agency's blueprint for acting on the recommendations from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) and safely returning to flight. This document is an initial outline to help guide the Space Shuttle Program.\"\n\n

\n\nThe first U.S. Air Force/Boeing \"Delta IV Heavy\" Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, a strong candidate to be the next U.S. manned launch vehicle, has been assembled here in preparation for rollout to Launch Pad 37B for several months of checkout before a demonstration flight in May 2004. \n\n\n\n

\n\n\"NASA's aspirations are more nebulous. In the wake of the Columbia disaster, the agency is undergoing an internal review of its priorities. In human space exploration, the completion and operation of the ISS is expected to be affirmed as the agency's top priority. But laying the groundwork for Mars could become a more visible part of the ISS's raison d'etre.\"

\n\n\"That's the issue. If Boeing can compete for it, then that will have an effect on price,\" Dumbacher said. \"If there is competition, then that keeps the price down. \"If there is a decision made that Boeing can't provide a proposal, then I don't know what we would do after that.\"

\n\n Editor's Note: Boeing has NASA in a pincher hold: they build the X-37 and they are one of the two potential ELV launch providers. Now Boeing is whining and complaining about everything - and NASA seems to have fallen for it. Whatever legal/financial problems Boeing is experiencing are not of NASA's making - and NASA should not have to be penalized as a result. Meanwhile, it is time for someone at MSFC to show a little spine - and a little creativity - when dealing with this issue. Hey, wasn't an X-37 launch from a Shuttle cargo bay one of the original options?

\n\n\"NASA/MSFC intends to negotiate additional scope under existing contracts, and solicit and consider proposals under a limited competition, only with the Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and a team consisting of the Northrop Grumman Corporation and the Orbital Sciences Corporation, for the design, development, test, delivery, and flight certification of an Orbital Space Plane (OSP).\"

\n\n\"The objective of the potential acceleration enabled through this action is to provide initial operational capability of the OSP system as soon as practical, and the associated benefits to ISS utility and crew, up to two years earlier (from 2010 to as early as 2008 or sooner).\"

\n\n\"The lack of detail has generated rumblings in Congress, where lawmakers complain that they can't make long-term policy or budget decisions for the agency until there's a clearer picture of the space plane.\"

\n\"None of the Shuttle's capabilities are indispensable, argued Tumlinson, and the ISS should not be used as an excuse to keep flying it at the risk of more astronauts lives. If needed, the Russians can keep it going, or it can be mothballed until it can be taken over by a private Space Port Authority, and then operated, serviced and expanded by private spaceships and cargo vehicles. Now is exactly the right time for a change that can eventually open space to the people who have paid for it all.\"

\n\nEditor's Note: This editorial is so full of contradictions and nutty conclusions as to make me wonder if anyone even bothered to read it before it was released. This paragraph alone causes me to wonder. Here is the logic as best I can figure it out: it is not OK to risk astronaut's lives flying on a Space Shuttle but it is OK to risk Russian cosmonaut's lives flying in a Soyuz or those of other people flying in some \"private spaceship\". Until a cogent, logical argument with logical premises and solutions - can be made by this - or any other organization - as to what to do with the Shuttle other than \"stop flying it\" and then wait for some magic to happen in the private sector, they should all just shut up and sit down. The last thing this situation needs right now is noise and random arm waving.

\n\n\"NASA/MSFC intends to negotiate on a sole source basis with The Boeing Company Phantom Works Southern California for a long duration orbital vehicle (LDOV) technology demonstrator under the Advanced Technology Flight Demonstration Vehicle (X-37) Project.\"

\n\n\"Sean O'Keefe, NASA's administrator, said he wanted industry to use simple off-the-shelf technology for the new system. \"We are not trying to push the envelope here,\" he said. \"We are taking the `KISS and tell' approach: Keep It Simple, Stupid, and tell us the best way to get what we need.\"

\n\n\"Beyond the immediate cause of the accident, \"the whole question\" of extending the life of the shuttles is \"on the table,\" said retired Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., chairman of the investigating board. Gehman said the board's final report will address these concerns and present remedies that could add considerably to the cost and complexity of flying the reusable space planes.\"

\n\n 9 May 2003: Aviation Week Reports Unanimous Criticism of NASA Safety \n\n\"Aviation Week & Space Technology reports in its May 12 issue that out of about 60 key NASA and contractor managers and technicians interviewed by the Columbia Accident Board on shuttle safety, \"not a single person said that the NASA quality program is where it ought to be\", investigators told the magazine.\"

\n\n\"Citing a lack of specific goals and a broad vision, Members of a key House Subcommittee expressed frustration over NASA's proposed new Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP) and Orbital Space Plane (OSP). They also echoed witness concerns that the current plan gives the U.S. few capabilities above what is currently available and will come at an undetermined cost.\"

\n\n\"I am not going to vote for any funding for the existing orbiter to go back to space,\" Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said at a half-day hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's proposed Orbital Space Plane, a crew transport craft.\"

\n\n\"Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) added: \"NASA's proposed Orbital Space Plane program won't deliver a Space Station crew return vehicle until four years after we need it, and it will cost billions of dollars more than the X-38/CRV program that was cancelled by the Administration. I think that 's both shortsighted and wasteful. We can do better.\"

\n\n\"The location of the Soyuz TMA spacecraft was unknown for a few hours - but an experienced recovery team soon found it. But what would happen if a Soyuz landed outside of the traditional recovery zone in Kazakhstan - such as on a large flat plain in America?\"

\n\nEditor's note: This story contains links to the text of a number of previously unreleased NASA Soyuz contingency planning documents.

\n\n\"A small team was chartered by NASA to make a top-level assessment of the viability of using the Apollo Command and Service Modules the basis for a Crew Return Vehicle, and potentially for a Crew Transfer Vehicle, for the International Space Station. This assessment was conducted 13-14 March 2003.\"

\n \nEditor's note: The complete report - including all tables - is now online

\n\n\"SpaceRef's Keith Cowing, who broke the Apollo story, said today that \"it's not clear what the real reason is behind these discussions, other than that many options are being looked at, and there will be hearings next week on Capitol Hill, and you can guarantee that all sides of the issue will be aired.\" Cowing observed that some people think using an updated Apollo capsule would represent a step backward, while others see it as a step forward. \"If America is looking to build a capsule simply because it doesn't have money to build something more sophisticated, with wings, then shame on us,\" he said. \"However, if this capsule and the modular approach - an approach that could include missions outside low Earth orbit - is what's under consideration, then yahoo!\"

\n\n\"Revisiting decades old technology may seem a backwards step, but it could make sense, said Keith Cowing, a former Nasa scientist who posted the report on his Nasawatch website. \"A capsule is cheap and safe and if you aim it right then the laws of physics will make it land,\" he said. \"But it's not clear what the real reason is behind these discussions.\"

\n\n\"Orbital acknowledges that its relatively small size could hamper its bid for a NASA contract to build a next-generation vehicle that could be used to shuttle astronauts to the international space station. So it teamed with Northrop Grumman Corp. for the competition, which will pit them against Lockheed and Boeing.\"

\n\n\"Members of NASA's Advisory Council complained Thursday that the agency's decision to build an orbital space plane rather than a full-fledged replacement for the space shuttle betrayed a lack of vision for the future of the nation's space program.\"

\n\n\"The purpose of this document is to provide a clear understanding and consistent interpretation of the Mission Needs Statement (MNS), Level 1 Requirements, and the Operations Concept as approved by the NASA Executive Council for the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) Program. These three documents should be considered as an integrated set of documents, which provides a basis of understanding such that the OSP Program can develop the lower level requirements and the Program Plan.\"

\n\n\"The normal job for the OSP will be crew exchange. A four-person crew will use an OSP as its transportation to and from the space station. The OSP they launch in will serve as their lifeboat for their four- to six-month stay in space. After the new crew has settled in, the outgoing crew will return to Earth in its OSP. Besides OSP, the Russian Soyuz will continue to be used for an additional three persons. Normally there will be a seven-person crew on the station, three using the Soyuz for transport and four using an OSP.\"

\n\nEditor's note: the author is making a lot of assumptions here - and stating them as certainties. In reality, NASA has not yet decided whether OSP crew transport vehicles and those left on orbit as CRVs will necessarily be the same or different spacecraft. Nor has any formal decision past the middle of this decade been made with regard to the continued provision of Soyuz spacecraft by Russia. Moreover, it is still not a given that the crew complement will be 7.

\n\n\"NASA today released the top level requirements for the Orbital Space Plane - a next generation system of space vehicles designed to provide a crew rescue and crew transport capability to and from the International Space Station. These requirements set the foundation for the design of the vehicle and its associated systems.\"

\n\n\"Less than three weeks after the Columbia tragedy grounded the U.S. space shuttle fleet, NASA is expected to release to aerospace companies its requirements for a new spacecraft to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station.\"

\n\n\"We've been told to implement the plan,\" Dennis Smith, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's program manager for the Orbital Space Plane, said yesterday. \"What we've been asking ourselves is if there is any way we can do anything to speed things up.\"

\n\n\"NASA/HQ intends to purchase these services from Dr. Daniel Mulville under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), Only One Responsible Source. Dr. Daniel Mulville has nearly 3 decades of experience in the development and management of the NASA space vehicle programs. He is a recognized expert on these matters throughout NASA and elsewhere in government.\"

\n\n

\n\n 28 January 2003: OSP Level 1 Requirements Due Soon

\n\nEditor's note: Sean O'Keefe visited MSFC last week with OSF AA Bill Readdy. Among the topics discussed were the Level 1 Requirements for the Orbital Space Plane. Word has it, at O'Keefe's direction, that the OSP requirements were to be succinct enough so as to fit on one page. They apparently meet that requirement.

This website does not have any connection whatsoever with, endorsement by, or authorization from, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration nor does any product or service being offered or made available to the public have the authorization, support, sponsorship,
or endorsement of, or the development, use, or manufacture by or on behalf of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration